Dissei Financial Judgment

Dissei explores financial reasoning and analysis behind institutional investment and credit decisions: interpreting evidence, weighing trade-offs and reaching well-supported conclusions.

This sample presents questions drawn from a completed private-equity transaction.

Tasks

Open a task to read its original question and brief. These public previews come from the seven-task evaluated sample; the case evidence and scoring materials require approved access.

Family	Information cutoff	Question
Diagnostic	2021-12	What diagnosis should you make of Company CI recent margin pressure at the anchor?
Predictive	2021-12	Would you expect Company CI to be relatively resilient if demand conditions weakened after the anchor?
Explanatory	2022-06	Why did Company CI recent margin pressure matter for the investment case at the anchor?
Quantitative	2022-06	What does the segment-share exhibit imply about Company CI relative market position?
Counterfactual	2022-09	Had Company BR declined to roll equity and provide a seller note, how would Company ED have had to reshape the capital structure to close at the same price, and how would risk-sharing shift?
Comparative	2022-09	Company ED is negotiating to acquire Company CI at a $14 billion enterprise value. Measured against how public equity markets value comparable HVAC manufacturers, is that entry price attractive?
Strategic	2022-09	Which diligence workstream should Company ED treat as gating before signing the carve-out?

Preview downloads contain the question, brief and metadata only. They are not runnable evaluations. The scores below come from the complete controlled-access tasks.

Recorded results

Reward / 100 is the equal-weight mean of the seven saved continuous task rewards, multiplied by 100. It is not accuracy. Values use unrounded rewards before display. Scores come from the complete evaluation tasks, not the read-only public previews. No task data, rubric or recorded reward changed for this publication.

Model	Reward / 100	Submitted	Run notes
Claude Fable 5.1	60.73	7/7	7 submitted; no infrastructure recovery
GPT-6 Astra	52.45	7/7	7 submitted; no infrastructure recovery
Claude Opus 5.5	52.17	7/7	7 submitted; no infrastructure recovery
GLM-5.3	44.91	7/7	7 submitted; 1 task recovered; earlier recovery interrupted by the VM limit
Kimi K3	35.79	7/7	7 submitted; no infrastructure recovery
Gemini 3.8 Flash	9.01	1/7	Protocol-limited: 1 submitted, 6 turn limits; 5 tasks recovered after infrastructure failures

Gemini 3.8 Flash's result is protocol-limited: six selected attempts reached the turn limit, and the JSON command parser rejected 50 responses. A non-submission receives zero without an LLM grade. The number therefore measures this harness interaction as well as the model. GLM-5.3's recovery completed after a previous recovery was interrupted by the VM's runtime limit; the other six successful original trials were retained. No successful trial was rerun to seek a higher score.

Evaluation method

• Seven fixed, content-addressed task versions, with December 2021, June 2022 and September 2022 information cutoffs.
• Harbor 0.23.0, Terminus-2 JSON agent harness, 20 dataroom calls, 40 agent turns and a 30-minute task limit.
• High agent reasoning, with at most 16,384 output tokens per request.
• A separate gemini-3.1-pro-preview judge, low reasoning and one vote, applies the authored rubric.
• One selected outcome per task. Infrastructure-only recovery attempts are retained in the private audit record with the original failures. An unresolved trial exception excludes an aggregate score; a genuine non-submission remains a zero.
• Model identities, task digests and original results are retained for controlled verification. Provider access paths and client framing can differ; this is not a claim of identical provider implementations.

Interpretation and review

This is a small, single-case pilot with no repeated-run variance estimate or error bars. Judge choice, evidence coverage and harness behavior can affect results. The scores are not an external certification, proof of absence of benchmark defects, or evidence that small score differences are significant.

Independent reproduction requires approved access to the evaluation materials. Reviewers can request the exact task/version manifest, grading specification, selected outputs and failure/recovery records under agreed terms. Public summary metrics are reported by Dissei; Harbor hosts them and does not independently recompute or certify them.

Access policy

The seven question briefs, task metadata, results and methodology are public. Case evidence, execution tools, rubrics, reference answers, evaluator implementation and private run records remain available through approved evaluation or research access.

Each public preview contains only its question, brief and metadata. This dataset starts at revision 1 and does not inherit the original benchmark's historical revisions or grant access to its protected files.

Evaluation, independent review, retention, redistribution and training rights require agreement. Publishing these question previews does not grant rights to the underlying benchmark assets.

Request evaluation or review access: tech@dissei.credit · dissei.ai/contact.